The Joke Police

|

Remember when I said you should be careful what you joke about? I wasn't kidding.

NEXT: Martin Sheen's Oedipus Problem, And Ours

Books Editor Jesse Walker is the author of Rebels on the Air and The United States of Paranoia.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lemon Curry Ph.D., M.D., PDQ
    December.10.2002 at 1:32 am

    We should nuke Oregon, all they do is sit around in the woods and collect unemployment anyway.

  2. s.m. koppelman
    December.10.2002 at 1:33 am

    Look on the bright side.When the Constitution is amended in a few years to declare the US a conservative-Evangelical theocracy, at least this kind of thing won’t happen anymore. No judge will be allowed to miss such an obvious biblical reference.

  3. Charles Hueter
    December.10.2002 at 2:33 am

    This is not a credible “threat” and a prison sentence of 37 months is not at all justifiable.

  4. edwardVT
    December.10.2002 at 5:11 am

    There are some things no sane person makes jokes about – statements that threaten the POTUS go beyond funny or stupid and are outside the bounds of free speach. Having said that, I wonder what else was presented at this guys trial that justifies a 37 month sentence?
    I think a standard policy of a thirty day remand for mental observation should be adopted for such people to determine if they are all there and if it is just sick “humor”, a boot in the butt after the lecture on the sane limits on free speach should make an impression, IMO.

  5. Swerdloff
    December.10.2002 at 11:32 am

    “He has said the comment was a prophecy protected under his right to free speech.”

    It stops being a joke when it starts becoming a self fullfillable (yeah, that’s not even close to a word, is it) prophecy about killing the president, doesn’t it? Doesn’t that slip into the “threats on the POTUS” category?

  6. Mostafa Sabet
    December.10.2002 at 12:24 pm

    A guy I work with wants to put up pictures of funny/quirky/ludicrous things he’s seen written in the sidewalks of San Francisco. One of them says “Nuke Reagan.” He’s afraid to put that one up for fears of getting a call from the Secret Service for making terroristic threats against a former president.

    Where is the fine line between a joke and a threat drawn?

  7. Brad S
    December.10.2002 at 12:29 pm

    I abhor censorship as much as the next guy, but when it comes to threatening someone’s life, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

  8. Swerdloff
    December.10.2002 at 12:38 pm

    Mostafa – I believe the line is drawn at clear and present danger, or clearly attainable objectives. The “Nuke Reagan” sign is neither CPD nor CAO. Someone speaking conspiratorially about spraying the POTUS, who is set to speak nearby the next day, with flammable liquid and then lighting him, and calling it a “prophecy” probably rises to the CAO standard.

    I think that’s probably the line.

    Illustration:
    “The president should be sacrificed to the lava gods by throwing him into the great volcano on the big island in Hawaii” is probably neither CAO nor CPD.

    “The president ought to be shot” said the man, holding a gun, and eyeing a news report that showed the president would be in town the next day, probably rises to CAO.

    (enough abbreviations for you?)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.